PC MINS 19920908MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman
Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA.
PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice
Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman.
ABSENT Commissioner Hayes (Excused)
Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley
Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate
Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant
Planner Paul Espe, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas and
Assistant Planner Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance
followed.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Director Onderdonk advised the Planning Commission that the
meeting minutes are now current.
Commissioner Alberio stated that he had written a letter thanking
the Port of Los Angeles for the Planning Commission/Staff Retreat
of August 29, 1992 and requested that a copy be sent to the City
Council. chairman Katherman presented a letter to Commissioner
Alberio on behalf of the Planning Commission thanking him for the
excellent job he did organizing the retreat.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of August 11, 1992: On Page 5, correct Chairman Clark
to Commissioner Clark.
B. Minutes of August 20, 1992: On Page 8, correct Motion to
Adjourn as seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, not Commissioner
Alberio. Also on Page 5, correct Commission Clark to
Commissioner Clark.
C. Minutes of August 25, 1992: No corrections.
NOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lorenzen, to approve Items A., B., and C. of the Consent Calendar
as corrected. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Lorenzen
abstaining on voting on the minutes of August 20, 1992 since he
was not present at that meeting and Commissioner Clark abstaining
on voting on the minutes of August 25, 1992 since he was not
present at that meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner
Lorenzen, to hear New Business after the Consent Calendar.
Motion passed 6-0.
D. P.C. Resolution No. 92-55; approving Extreme Slope No. 32,
Minor Exception Permit No. 446 - Appeal at 6425 Via de Anzar.
The Planning Commission determined that the new roof design
submitted by the applicant was appropriate, and that it
accomplished what the Planning Commission had intended to achieve
by their original request that the applicant add a hip roof to
each end of the residence.
MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner
Alberio, to reconsider condition 4. of Exhibit "All of the draft
resolution. Motion passed 6-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to amend Condition 4. of Exhibit "All of P.C. Resolution
No. 92-55 to request that the roof is to be as shown on Option
"B" of applicant's plans which were attached to the draft
resolution. Motion passed 6-0.
Robert W. Ford, 6426 Via de Anzar, stated that since applicant's
plans had been significantly changed from what was approved by
the Planning Commission on August 25, 1992, the Minor Exception
Permit should be continued to a future meeting to allow him
adequate time to review and comment on the revised roof design.
Chairman Katherman responded that the new plans will have even
less impact on Mr. Ford's view than the hip roof originally
requested by the Commission. He felt that the revised roof
design furthered the spirit of the Commission's previous decision
and, therefore, there was no justification for continuing the
issue.
NEW BUSINESS
A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT• City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
On August 25, 1992, Commissioner Mowlds requested that Staff
agendize an item to amend the Development Code to allow staff to
approve minor grading within extreme slope areas. Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed
amendment and direct Staff to forward the proposal to the City
Council.
K
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
In response to Chairman Katherman's question, Planning
Administrator Petru advised that public notice to neighbors would
not be required for Staff approval of minor grading within an
extreme slope.
MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lorenzen, to recommend that City Council review the proposed code
amendment for Staff approval of minor grading within an extreme
slope. Notion passed 6-0.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS LIMITING ON -STREET
PARKING & CLOSURE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO UNDEVELOPED LAND; City
of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the
proposed policy recommendations, as drafted by Vice Chairman
Byrd.
1. Limiting On -Street Parking
The Commissioners expressed their concern about the ambiguities,
legal ramifications, and enforcement costs of the proposed policy
to limit on -street parking.
John Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Calma and Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine
Road, testified against the proposed policy limiting on -street
parking stating that everyone had a right to park on the public
streets of Rancho Palos Verdes without restriction, that there
was no justification for limiting on -street parking since Rancho
Palos Verdes did not have a major crime problem, and that there
would be significant cost to the City to enforce this policy.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner
Kowlds, to recommend the policy limiting on -street parking to
City council. Notion passed 4-2, with Commissioners Lorenzen and
Clark dissenting. Commissioner Clark said that without
substantial proof of safety problems, he could not vote to
support the policy.
2. Closure of Public Access to Undeveloped Land
The Commissioners requested that the ambiguities of the proposed
on -street parking policy be clarified, that a financial analysis
be done, and that the policy be reviewed with the City Attorney.
Director Onderdonk advised that when the Planning Commission
recommends a course of action to the City Council, standard
9
C`
-A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
11
procedure is that it would be subject to review by the City
Attorney.
John Sharkey, 30320 Ave del Calma, testified against the proposed
policy to close access to public trails when it has been
demonstrated that the trail poses a risk to public safety. He
stated that maximum access to the coastline is required under the
State constitution and the California Coastal Act of 1974 for all
residents of the State of California.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she walked in the
areas that would be affected by this policy and that her access
would be cut off. She commented that the Department of Parks and
Recreation arranges walks in these areas which would be illegal
under this proposed policy.
Commissioner Alberio stated that he was concerned about the
financial impact and the ambiguities of the proposed policy to
close public access. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the policy
does not close public access. It establishes a policy to close
access to a public trail only if there is a problem with public
safety.
MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner
Byrd, to recommend the policy of closure of public access to
undeveloped tracts of land to City Council. Motion passed 4-1,
with commissioner Clark abstaining and Chairman Katherman
dissenting.
Commissioner Clark's abstention was based on his desire for more
public input. Chairman Katherman stated that he preferred to
approach the issue of public access to trails on a case by case
basis.
Director Onderdonk informed the
these policies could be heard by
1992.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Commission that the earliest
City Council was October 20,
The meeting recessed at 8:50 and reconvened at 9:05.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to continue Item A., Sign Permit No 584, to the Planning
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Commission meeting of September 22, 1992, with the understanding
that it will heard first on the agenda. Motion passed 6-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to reorder the agenda to hear Public Hearing, Item C.
next. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
C. VARIANCE NO. 343; Warren Sterling and Barbara Marbell, 5863
Ocean Terrace Drive.
Requested Action: That the Planning Commission approve the
request, subject to conditions, for the construction of a 136
square foot addition, 13 feet 4 inches in height to extend a
maximum of two feet over the extreme slope on the southwest side
of the property, to be located 20 feet one inch from the side
yard property line.
The Planning Commission agreed to waive the presentation of the
staff report.
Barbara Marbell (Applicant), 5863 Ocean Terrace Drive, stated
that she had no problem with the conditions requested by Staff.
However, Ms. Marbell requested that Condition 7 of Exhibit "A" be
deleted since it conflicted with Condition 2 of Exhibit "A".
MOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner
Mowlds, to approve Variance No. 343, subject to the conditions of
Exhibit "A", with the removal of Condition 7. Motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Katherman advised that the resolution would be signed
that evening and that there is a 15 day appeal period.
A. SERVICE STATION ORDINANCE; City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Citywide.
Requested Action: Review a proposed ordinance which would amend
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to allow the City to
regulate the conversion of gasoline service stations to other
uses. Under the draft ordinance, a gasoline station owner in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes may convert a service station to
another use only after applying for and receiving a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) from the Planning Commission.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Associate Planner Rojas presented the staff report stating that
in an effort to discourage the conversion of service stations to
other uses, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft
an ordinance regulating the conversion of gasoline service
stations in the City to other uses. The City Council sent the
draft ordinance to the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing and to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr.
Rojas advised that there is a trend toward conversion of service
stations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula to non -service station
uses, resulting in an increasing unavailability of essential
automotive services.
Staff recommended that the City Council not adopt the proposed
ordinance and instead recommended that the City initiate a
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change to ensure that all service
stations in the City are legal uses in conformance with the
City's Zoning/General Plan. This would more easily allow service
stations to expand or modernize their facilities, since present
Code requirements do not allow any expansion of a non -conforming
use.
Jeff Wilson, Western States Petroleum Association, 2600 Alma
Avenue, Manhattan Beach, spoke against the ordinance stating that
It would prevent service station owners from converting their
property to other than a conventional service station with
automotive service bays. He believes that the free market has
served the motoring public well and that there will be no lack of
automotive service since it will be provided by the specialty
automobile repair service shops such as Jiffy Lube, Tune -Up
Master, etc. Mr. Wilson also said that modern service stations
are faster and more convenient, which is what consumers want, and
also keep gas prices down.
The Commissioners stated their concerns about the lack of
automobile repair services on the peninsula if gas stations are
converted to modern gas -only stations, and did not think there
should be Jiffy -Lubes, etc. allowed on the peninsula. They did
not think the people of Rancho Palos wanted gas stations with
convenience stores.
Mr. Wilson responded that because of the high cost of technical
equipment to service fuel injection, computer chips, etc., it is
very difficult for traditional service stations to keep and train
operators for that type of service.
Steven J. Saporito, 28004 Ridgebluff Court, Charles Webster,
23437 Shadycroft Avenue, Torrance, and Jim Juneau, 5656 Crest
21
-0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
•
Road, all owners of service stations on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula with auto repair shops, testified against the proposed
ordinance. They approved of the General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change proposed by Staff since it will make it easier to obtain
financing and to modernize and expand. They said there was demand
on the peninsula for full-service stations. They also stated
that their auto repair businesses are profitable and they want to
stay on the peninsula. They also provide jobs for local
residents.
Roger Beach, President and CEO of Unocal Corporation, 16 San
Clemente, stated that he was against the proposed ordinance and
that he agreed with Staff's recommendation to change the zoning
instead. Mr. Beach said that many businesses were closing and he
thought that the Planning Commission was singling out a
particular industry. He thought there would be sufficient
stations on the peninsula for gas service and informed the
Commission that Unocal will have a gas station at every exit of
the peninsula. He stated that the City will have to spend a lot
of money to prove who is making a fair return on their money. He
stated that the market place should dictate which businesses are
closed and which are not.
In response to Commissioner Alberio's questions, Mr. Beach said
that three of the Unocal service stations at the exits of the
peninsula will have full service with auto repair shops.
Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 vallon Drive, Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine
Road, and John Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Calma, testified against the
proposed ordinance, stating that they thought it was over
regulation, that people now go off the peninsula for gas and auto
repair anyway, and that the free market should be allowed to
determine if the service stations go to self service and
eliminate the auto repair shops. Ms. Larue informed the Planning
Commission that the service station on Crest Road is the only
toxic waste site in Rancho Palos Verdes.
MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Katherman stated that he did not want to see the City
put in the position to determine what is profitable and what is
not and, therefore, was against the proposed ordinance. The
Commissioners agreed that they wanted to accommodate the
continuance of auto service in the community by making the zoning
regulations as easy as possible for service stations to expand
and upgrade. Chairman Katherman suggested that the Conditional
7
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Use Permit process could be used to
the City wants and to not allow the
does not want, such as convenience
pump booths.
limit the type of services
type of services the City
markets, liquor sales, and gas
NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to recommend that the City Council 1) not adopt the
proposed ordinance, 2) initiate a General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change to ensure that all service stations in the City are,legal
uses in conformance with the City's Zoning/General Plan and 3)
amend the Development Code to grant Conditional Use Permits to
those existing service stations that are already located in a
commercial zoning district. Motion passed 6-0.
B. VARIANCE NO. 333; Dr. and Mrs. Neal, 2810 Colt Road.
Applicants have withdrawn their request and are planning to file
a Minor Exception Permit. Therefore, no action was necessary.
CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 741 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 324; Mr. and
Mrs. Deilman, 28220 Golden Meadow Drive.
MOTION: Commissioner Nowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman
Byrd, to waive the presentation of the staff report. Motion
passed 6-0.
Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that it continues to be
Staff's opinion that the project would cause cumulative view
impairment from the properties at 7017 and 7015 Cherty Drive.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal,
thereby upholding the Director's decision to deny the proposed
second story addition.
Howard Dielmann (Applicant), 28220 Golden Meadow Drive, stated
that he did not object to Staff's conditions, except for
Condition F, which requested that there be no windows on the
eastern elevation of the second story.
Fred Van Kirk, 1428 Via castilla,,Palos Verdes Estates, who is
the owner of 7025 Cherty Drive, stated that his view will be
impaired by this addition. Mr. Van Kirk said that a second story
addition is not appropriate for the neighborhood and that the
Planning Commission would have difficulty turning down requests
for other second story additions if this one is approved.
8
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
•
NOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner
Mowlds, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0.
Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the windows on the east side would be
below the level of the deck of the house located behind the
applicant's property. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded
that he didn't know, but the reason Staff had asked for no
windows was to ensure the privacy of that neighbor.
MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman
Byrd, to approve the appeal of Height Variation No. 741, thereby
approving Height Variation, subject to the conditions recommended
by Staff, except Condition F, which is to be deleted. Notion
passed 5-1, with Commissioner Alberio dissenting.
Commissioner Alberio stated that he could not support the project
since there would be a significant cumulative impact if houses
across the street were allowed to build second story additions.
He said the applicant could use the room in the back of the
property to expand on the first level.
Chairman Katherman stated the Planning Commission will decide
projects on a case-by-case basis, and other properties in
neighborhood cannot use this case as a precedent.
D. VARIANCE NO. 342; Erwin and Renata Heindl, 40 Santa Catalina
Drive.
Applicant has requested a 200 open space reduction within the
front yard setback for driveway and parking areas, and for
pilasters in the front yard setback exceeding the 4211 height
limitation. This variance application for after -the -fact
approval resulted from a code enforcement complaint
The Planning Commission agreed to waive presentation of the staff
report.
Erwin Heindl (Applicant), 40 Santa Catalina, stated that his
building contractor had assured him that everything was in
compliance with City regulations. He said there were many
pilaster higher and driveways bigger than his in the Island View
Development.
Commissioner Mowlds stated that he had not seen any bigger houses
or driveways in the neighborhood, and asked if Mr. Heindl knew
where they were located. Mr. Heindl said he did not have any
addresses.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
0
Barbara Wells, Island View Homeowners Association, SantaBarbara
Drive and Anita Cole, 44 Santa Catalina Drive, stated that the
applicant's property is not in compliance with the Island View
CC&Rs and is not in harmony with the neighborhood. They said
that he has built without the Homeowner Association's approval,
and has misrepresented what he was going to build. The applicant
has not submitted any plans to the Homeowners Association. Ms.
Wells informed the Commission that much of the hardscape was put
in by the applicants themselves. They asked the Planning
Commission to deny applicant's request for a variance because of
the excessive lot coverage.
Commissioner Byrd asked if they have had similar disagreements
with other homeowners. Ms. Wells replied that the pilasters are
not unique to the Heindls, but that the problem was with the
excessive lot coverage and lack of landscaping in the front yard.
Commissioner Alberio stated that some of the pilasters are in a
public right-of-way.
Director Onderdonk informed the Planning Commission that there is
an application pending to vacate the street, which would
eliminate the encroachment into the public right-of-way. He went
on to explain that it is not the staff's practice to pursue code
enforcement cases while a permit is pending which could legalize
the violation.
MOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0.
NOTION: commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to deny the request for Variance No. 342 and to instruct
the applicants to meet the City's Code requirements for open
space and maximum height of structures within the front yard
setback. Notion passed 6-0.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner
Mowlds, to have Staff request that the Department of Public Works
investigate the pilasters located on applicant's property within
the public easement and take the necessary action to have them
removed. Motion passed 5-1, with Chairman Katherman dissenting.
Commissioner Alberio requested that Staff confirm that applicant
has the proper permits for all the structures on his property,
and commissioner Mowlds requested that the permits be reviewed to
ensure that the structures are where they are supposed to be.
1E
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Vice Chairman Byrd requested a report from Staff as to the
direction from the Public Works Department at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Chairman Katherman asked Staff to prepare a resolution for the
next Planning Commission meeting, and advised the applicant that
there would be a 15 day appeal period after the resolution is
signed.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 171• Eugene and Virginia Muntean
(for Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc.), 30057 Matisse.
Staff recommended that applicant be allowed to install a 191
antenna for commercial purposes, subject to conditions.
Planning Commission agreed to waive presentation of the staff
report.
David La Montagne (Applicant), President, Vessel Assist
Association of America, Inc., 1012 Brioso Drive, Costa Mesa,
stated that he would have no problem complying with the
conditions set forth by the Staff and the Planning Commission.
Mr. La Montagne explained that he had installed the antenna
without Planning Commission approval because he thought the
project would be before the Planning Commission by the end of
July. He also stated that he thought the Planning Commission
could better review and assess any impacts of the project now
that the antenna was installed.
In response to Commissioner Alberio's question, Mr. La Montagne
informed the Planning Commission that the only equipment other
than the antenna is a small box under the house which is hooked
up to the phone lines.
Commissioner Lorenzen asked if the antenna will pick up
television frequencies, and commissioner Clark asked if there had
been problems with disturbances of residential electronics.
Associate Planner Silverman responded that the FCC said there
should be no interference, and that the six month trial period
would give staff the opportunity to review any complaints about
interference.
Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the FCC would be inspecting the
facility for a radiation pattern. Mr. La Montagne answered that
they do not routinely inspect unless there are complaint letters.
11
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
•
He has asked them to come out and they haven't responded as yet.
Also, the radiation pattern would be directed outward, away from
the adjacent residences.
Commissioner Clark asked that, since this is a commercial
enterprise, is the City going to gain some revenue and
Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant had a City business
license. Associate Planner Silverman answered that Staff is
requiring that the applicant obtain a business license as a
condition of approval.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commission Mowlds
to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman
Byrd, to approve Staff's recommendation to allow the installation
of a 19 foot antenna for commercial purposes for a trial period
of six months. Approval is subject to conditions as outlined in
staff report, and with additional conditions that applicant shall
pay a penalty fee as determined by Staff prior to the Planning
Commission signing of the Resolution, the applicant shall obtain
a City business license, and the applicant shall establish a
trust deposit to pay City for the mailing of an initial notice
and a second notice to the neighborhood before any extension of
the six month trial period. All conditions of approval, except
the second notice, are to be met before the applicant will be
allowed to begin transmitting. Motion passed 6-0.
QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items)
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that a letter had
appeared in the Peninsula Business Journal on June 1992,
regarding the Hon -Zuckerman project which contained misinform-
mation which she thought the Planning Commission should be aware.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner
Alberio, to adjourn to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 220 1992. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Mowlds left
the meeting before the adjournment vote.
Meeting was duly adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
W